What was the outcome of Sunoco's motion for summary judgment against Greyhound in the litigation described in the Aplus FDD?
Aplus Franchise · 2024 FDDAnswer from 2024 FDD Document
he extent permitted by law. After discovery and motion practice at the trial court level, the judge granted Sunoco's motion for summary judgment for breach of contract against Greyhound. At the same time, the judge granted Penn National and Sergey Gorlov's motions for summary judgment against Sunoco, which negated Sunoco's claims against Penn National and Gorlov as a matter of law. A damages trial was set on Sunoco's damages as a result of Greyhound's breach of contract. At the trial, the judge awarded Sunoco all of the damages it sought in its breach of contract case against Greyhound for failure to defend/indemnify Sunoco in the underlying personal injury case. Specifically, the judge awarded $1.5MM for the underlying settlement amount that Sunoco had to pay, $409,344.07 for unreimbursed defense costs for the underlying litigation, and $379,458.69 for attorney's fees to prosecute this breach of contract claim. The total verdict was $2,288,802.76. Greyhound appealed the verdict to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Sunoco also appealed the order granting Penn National's and Gorlov's motions for summary judgment to the same court. The ap
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 14–15)
What This Means (2024 FDD)
According to Aplus's 2024 Franchise Disclosure Document, Sunoco filed an action against Greyhound Aramingo Petroleum Co., Inc. for breach of contract and indemnification due to the failure to perform contractual duties related to an accident at a Sunoco-branded gas station. The judge granted Sunoco's motion for summary judgment for breach of contract against Greyhound. This means the court agreed with Sunoco that Greyhound had breached its contract.
Following the summary judgment in Sunoco's favor, a damages trial was held to determine the monetary amount Greyhound owed Sunoco. The judge awarded Sunoco $1.5 million for the underlying settlement amount, $409,344.07 for unreimbursed defense costs, and $379,458.69 for attorney's fees, resulting in a total verdict of $2,288,802.76. This indicates the total financial burden Greyhound was ordered to cover due to the breach.
However, the legal process did not end there. Greyhound appealed the verdict to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and Sunoco also appealed the order granting Penn National's and Gorlov's motions for summary judgment. As of the FDD's publication, all appeals are still pending, meaning the final outcome of the case is yet to be determined. This introduces uncertainty, as the appellate court could potentially overturn or modify the original judgment.